Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[Brett Duncan]

Jonathan Henkelman wrote:
>  Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen <at> lilypond.org> writes:
>
> >> If we are going to worry about seperating the music from the
> >> typesetting,
>  then
> >> it is worth observing that these two are equivalent musically.
> >> It doesn't
> > No, they aren't. The stresses fall in different places.  In bottom
> > example,
>  the stress is
> > on the 2nd 8th note.
> >
>
>  True enough, but it will also depend on the time signature.
>  However, we still need to have a default and it seems deciding based
>  on the value of the first note is as reasonable a guess as any.  It
>  can always be overriden by an experienced user.

I respectfully disagree. In a lot of the music you will see rhythms like

|--3--| |--3--|
|  |\   |  |\
|  |    |  |
X  X    X  X

but your suggestion of basing the tuplet span on the first note would 
generate

|------3------|
|  |\   |  |\
|  |    |  |
X  X    X  X

which implies a different emphasis. I would not like to see this as a 
default.

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote
>  \tuplet 6:4 2. { .. } is a lot of numbers. Not very readable IMO.

No argument here - I wasn't advocating a specific syntax, but simply 
raising the possibility that the tuplet's span could be an argument of 
the function. Otherwise, we're simply turning \times into \tuplet 
without really changing anything about its functionality.

My $0.02

Brett
--
Brett Duncan address@hidden

"opinio tam stulta non est quam philosophus quidam exprimere non possit"
(there is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it)

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC)